What a topsy-turvy world we live in. Recent events worldwide have given rise to what I would describe as an ache in the human heart for a solution to the ever-more extreme levels of brutalising violence being perpetrated. Added to this ache is a feeling of frustration at our apparent inability to achieve a coherent plan of action to deal with the problem.
An anecdote concerning one of the world’s most eminent scientists came to mind. After a lecture, Albert Einstein invited questions from his students. He was asked: “What field is left for us to investigate?” His reply was to the effect that it was time that someone researched the much ignored topic of the power of prayer.
In the light of that possibly surprising, but revealing and intriguing, observation, what are we to make of the decision by a group of cinemas not to show a 60-second film showing people of differing ages, ethnicity and circumstances, sharing the repetition of the Lord’s Prayer? The film was passed by the British Board of Film Classification but rejected by Digital Cinema Media (DCM) on the grounds that “some people might find it offensive”.
With regard to offensiveness, advertising alcohol might be offensive to a teetotaller. Similarly, burger chains to a vegetarian or luxury cruises, housing, clothing exotic perfumes etc to those struggling to make ends meet.
More seriously, it is apparently against DCM policy to show adverts of a proselytising religious nature. This I can understand. A prayer, however, is entirely different, common to all humanity of whatever religion and dare I say, sometimes in extreme stress, to some of those of a secular mind.
Is it right that an organisation such as DCM should have such sweeping powers? If we can make our own judgements with regard to other advertisements, may we not make our own judgement about a prayer?
Ada McDonald
Cambuslang
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel